Davis Guggenheim- What happens when some can pay and others can’t?

Davis Guggenheim made copyright sound scary and complicated.  And after the readings this week, yikes!  As the readings this week suggest, copyright is both a good and a bad thing.  I would not want someone to make money off of my work unfairly but at the same time, I would no mind sharing some things for the sake of art and definitely for educational purposes.  It seems like there are so many loopholes to the law.  But it is good to see that judges are starting to be fair and reasonable in judgments.  Does Fox really need another $10,000 because of someone’s documentary on New York.  I think that is a little greedy.  It seems like there are so many variations on the rule that is could be hard to keep it all straight.

The short video Army of One was an interesting digital story in itself, as it told two stories with one image.  Film is such a long, long process.  I feel for this guy that he started his film in 2002 and he is still dealing with copyright stuff.  As Guggenheim said, great things end up getting cut which is really too bad.  Here is this filmmaker, making a piece of current importance and he is stuck in the bureaucracy of it all.  Kind of takes the fun out of the art and research.

My story is not going to be copyright friendly, something I was aiming for.  At least I can get the concept of it down and change out images later if I need to.  The good news is if I make it big, a high school friend of mine is an entertainment lawyer out in LA.  Maybe he will take pity on the little guy.  I also have someone willing to right music for my films for free.  It is all frustrating and I feel for the artists out there.

Category: W13: Copyright
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
2 Responses
  1. jjanes says:

    The worst part about all of this is that the purpose of your creation can change, whether you intend it to or not, yet in order to cover you rear you need to constantly be worrying about copyright issues. Although Fair Use covers educational creations, it seems to me that this could easily be changed through our rampant use of social networking today. For example, you start with something you want to just show in a class. But your classmates love it, and you decide to upload it somewhere. Someone else thinks that you are a genius, and sends it to all of her friends. A couple of these friends really agree with your point and link to it on their Facebook. And it goes on and on until it is potentially everywhere. And then some big corporation steps in and tries to sue you because in the background of one of your shots is a prominent corporate logo…and you find yourself in court. How fair is that?

  2. gcheong says:

    A nice example is the Jane Austen adaptations… with zombies… :)

    While Austen may be long gone and the adaptation satirical (with the lead female brandishing a katana), this might seem more objectionable had she been alive today. Along these lines, some authors find fan fiction flattering and others like stealing their characters. Even without the greed, I understand that fanfic might seem like a perversion of their work, etc.

    Which is why copyright until death seems like a fine idea… but death plus how many years… which is almost an entire second lifetime (given that obesity is supposed to be shortening our lifespans now)? :)